No. Go read. Come back when you've read up on the electoral college, the electorates and who is eligible to vote in a presidential election.
You have a lot to tackle but you'll be better informed afterward.

No shame. Go get it. No time like an election year to get familiar with the whole process.

Because we live in representative democracy. When elected you do not just represent the needs of the people who voted for you, you look out for the
needs of the people in your district. Just because children, felons, immigrants etc, can not vote does not mean they do not count.

What makes the title even more silly is that the ruling changed nothing. It struck down a challenge on the way things have always been done. I am
not sure where your confusion comes from.

So districts aren't partisan biased towards a partisan direction that isn't representative of the people that live there. By the way, this also
applies to felons, people not registered to vote, children, and other people who don't vote. Not just immigrants. Though you spinning it to apply
solely to illegals is rather sensationalist.

This is the point that clarified it really quickly for me. They're counting The Population, not the population of "American Citizens, 18 years
of age and older, who are not convicted felons, who have chosen to register to vote."

US Population is currently around 324,000,000. That means 55% of people can't or don't vote - it doesn't mean they should not be represented.

ETA: To clarify, I'm supporting KrazyShot's position here, the additional information is intended to help the OP and anyone misled by such alarmist
propaganda to discern the obvious reality from the silly notion of America being "done."

They aren't voting, but I do see this as a problem although not specifically because of the illegals.

Why do we count ineligible voters for purposes of determining a district for congressional representation?

Think about it.

Let's say you have population A and population B. They are comprised of equal numbers of people. However, for various reasons, population A is 51%
voter eligible and population B is 61% voter eligible. At this point, population B now has a numerical advantage in the number of people who can vote
meaning that if they all vote, any one person's vote in population B is less important overall in determining the outcome of population B.

But it also means that the result for population B is more authentic because more of the people in population B can actually represent themselves at
the ballot box. Almost half the people in population A have no legal voice in the outcome for their district. It will just be assumed they agree.
Imagine now that only 40 to 30% of that district can legally vote ...

It also means that you are weighing the votes of relatively few people (the smaller percentage who can legally vote in population A) as equal against
the larger number of votes of the people in population B, further disenfranchising the single vote of a voter in a district with more legal voters.

And of course, we can also learn from the last time this sort of voter trick was tried - the Antebellum Old South when the slave owners wanted to
count their non-legal for voting slaves for purposes of determining congressional representation so that the slave owning south could stock the
House of Representatives with slave-sympathizing Representatives who would vote for slave-sypathetic legislature.

That argument went like this:

Blacks can be counted for purposes of determining population in a district. So a slave owner with 50 slaves wanted to count them as residents. But,
they could not legally vote. Only, of course, the slave owner could. So whose views do you think those elected candidates would endorse and
represent?

Blame the southern states demanding 3/5ths counting for the non-voting slaves they owned.

You have a very poor grasp of history.

The southern state wanted 100%. The 3/5 clause was what they got. It was the best that could be managed given the makeup of congress at the time since
the north did not have clear enough majority to force their will.

The real truth to why they wanted this lawsuit to survive. In Texas 80% of the white population is > 18 years old. While 50% of the Hispanic
population is greater the 18 years old. So if this way of counting were to take place in Texas Hispanic representation would decrease and move to
older whites.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.